Columbus, Georgia

MINUTES

COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA

REGULAR SESSION

JANUARY 27, 2009



The regular weekly meeting of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was called

to order at 5:35 P.M, Tuesday, January 27, 2009, on the Plaza Level of the

Government Center, Columbus, Georgia. Honorable W. J. Wetherington, Mayor,

presiding.



*** *** ***



PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Wetherington and Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn Turner

Pugh were: Councilors R. Gary Allen, Wayne Anthony, Jerry Barnes, Glenn Davis,

Berry H. Henderson, Julius H. Hunter, Jr., Charles E. McDaniel, Jr. and Evelyn

Woodson. City Manager Isaiah Hugley, City Attorney Clifton Fay, Clerk of

Council Tiny Washington and Deputy Clerk of Council Sandra Davis were also

present. Councilor Mike Baker took his seat at 5:37 p.m.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------

ABSENT: No one was absent.



-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------



INVOCATION: Led by Pastor Joseph Moore, Pastor of Pentecostal Deliverance

Church.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------



PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Mayor Wetherington.



-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------

MAYOR?S AGENDA:



WITH MR. JERRY STEWART AND MR. MIKE STEWART STANDING AT THE COUNCIL TABLE

THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND READ IN ITS ENTIRETY BY COUNCILOR

DAVIS AND ADOPTED BY THE

COUNCIL:____







A Resolution (14-09) ? Commending Christian Garay upon his USTA National

Winter Championship victory. Councilor Davis moved the adoption of the

resolution. Seconded by Councilor Henderson and carried unanimously by those

ten members of Council present at the time.



*** *** ***



WITH JUDGE JOHN ALLEN STANDING AT THE COUNCIL TABLE THE FOLLOWING

RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND READ IN ITS ENTIRETY BY MAYOR PRO TEM TURNER PUGH

AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL:_

_







A Resolution (15-09) ? Commending the Honorable John D. Allen, who was

appointed as the first African-American Chief Judge of the Chattahoochee

Judicial Circuit.

Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh moved the adoption of the resolution. Seconded by

Councilor Woodson and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council

present at the time.

------------------------------------*** ***

***----------------------------------

MINUTES: Minutes of the November 4 & 18, 2008 meeting of the Council of the

Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia was submitted and approved upon

the adoption of a motion made by Councilor McDaniel and seconded by Councilor

Woodson, which carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present for

this meeting.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------

CITY ATTORNEY?S AGENDA:



THE FOLLOWING THREE ORDINANCES WERE SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY

ATTORNEY FAY AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON SECOND

READING:________ ________



An Ordinance (09-2) ? Rezoning property located at 418 Andrews Road/2315

Clover Lane from an RMF2 (Residential Multi-Family 2) zoning district to GC

(General Commercial) zoning district. (45-A-08-Thomas) Mayor Pro Tem Turner

Pugh moved the adoption of the ordinance. Seconded by Councilor McDaniel and

carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this meeting.



*** *** ***



An Ordinance (09-3) ? Rezoning property located at 2221 & 2311 Manchester

Expressway from an NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district to GC (General

Commercial) zoning district. (46-A-08-Mize) Councilor Henderson moved the

adoption of the ordinance. Seconded by Councilor Woodson and carried

unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this meeting.



*** *** ***



An Ordinance (09-4) ? Amending the text of the Unified Development

Ordinance to amend several typographical errors regarding Chapters 8, 12 and 13

of the Unified Development Ordinance. (47-A-08 Planning Department) Councilor

Henderson moved the adoption of the ordinance. Seconded by Councilor McDaniel

and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this

meeting.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------

ZONING PUBLIC HEARINGS:



THE FOLLOWING ZONING ORDINANCE WAS SUBMITTED AND ITS CAPTION READ BY CITY

ATTORNEY FAY AND A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AS

ADVERTISED:_______________





An Ordinance ? Rezoning property located at 6801 and 6923 River Road from

an NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district to a PCD (Planned Commercial

Development) zoning district. (48-CA-08-North End, LLC)





PROPONENTS & OPPONENTS:



The petitioner, Mr. Ken Henson was present, but he did not make a

presentation, as there was no one present to oppose this proposed rezoning

ordinance.



*** *** ***



THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY

AND AFTER SEVERAL MINUTES OF DISCUSSION WAS DEFEATED BY THE

COUNCIL:



A Resolution ? Requesting Special Exception Use to construct a

wireless communications facility at 425 Old Buena Vista Road.





City Attorney Fay said the next item is the Special Exception Use request

to construct a wireless communication tower at 425 Old Buena Vista Road. He

said this is recommended approval by the Planning Advisory Commission and the

Planning Department. We have some representatives here from the company and if

you?ll would come up and give your name and address for the record and state

your case again, as this is the second time this application has been back; and

then we will hear from other interested parties, anybody opposed.



City Manager Hugley said he would just like to acknowledge that there is a

court reporter here and she is here with the petitioner.



PROPONENTS:



The petitioner, Mr. Andy Rotenstreich, representing TCD Services, LLC who

is requesting the cell tower and AT&T Wireless, which will be the initial

tenants and the carrier; the name which is most recognized. He said the

proposed cell tower is a 195 feet monopole tower, which is a single pole tower

proposed on Old Buena Vista Road. He said it is on vacant land across from the

electric substation and is currently zoned Light Manufacturing and Industrial.

He said he would like to show you why AT&T needs this particular location. At

this time Mr. Rotensteich presented a propagation map and explained why AT&T is

in need of this particular location. He outlined the green area on the map,

which he identified as in-building coverage, and the best coverage that you can

get, extending out from these various cell sites that are currently in place.

He said the red dots indicate existing cell sites in and around Columbus. He

said the blue is what they refer to in-vehicle coverage and the yellow is what

they refer to as outdoors or no coverage. He showed the current AT & T coverage

in and around the area of Columbus and said there is a void in the area, which

is the area that they are trying to cover to make that area green and blue. He

said the areas around there are well served by AT& T service and said they are

trying to get that same type of coverage, those same enhanced services, the

same broadband services to that area of Columbus. He then showed the area on

the map that would have coverage should AT& T get the approval it is

requesting. He said AT&T would like to provide this area with the same coverage

and enhanced services as the other surrounding areas. He said with this

particular site, we could fill in the entire area.

Mr. Rotenstreich said when they come to an area what they do is look for an

existing towers or existing structures, things that they can simply hang their

antennas on, which is a lot quicker and easier for them; and hopefully a lot

less intrusive. He said there are two towers within a two-mile radius of this

proposed site. He said what they did was checked and ran propagations to see if

they would cover the yellow area that they had on the first one.



He then showed the area on the map what the propagations would look like

if AT & T were able to hang its antennas at the highest available spot on that

tower. He said the problem they have is that they would still have an area that

is not being served. He said the Optic site tower along would not work to fill

in the needed area. He said there is another tower located almost two miles to

the south and with them hanging antennas at the 160 feet level on that tower,

which is the highest available point on that tower, they still have the

coverage objectives in Columbus that would not be served; we would still need

to be before you tonight asking for this particular site to be built.



He said they then looked at the combination of those two; is there a

combination of co-locating on both of those towers that might get them the

coverage they need. He said yes, that is two different leases and two different

sets of antennas, but then again, they would not have to build a new tower.



Councilor Woodson said if you were putting an antenna on both of those

towers, why would you not have the coverage that you need.



Mr. Rotenstreich said it could be that they are not getting high enough on

those towers or maybe those spaces are already taken or it could be the terrain

that the signal would be blocked by the terrain or simply because it is too far

away. He said AT & T engineers did the study.



Councilor Allen asked, what is the size of that area that is not covered.



Mr. Rotenstreich said approximately one mile and a half in diameter, maybe

two miles. He said without being able to locate on those two towers our only

alternative was to look to construct our own tower. He said at the suggestion

of the City, we learned that there was some City property located further

south. He said we took that information from the City and went down Brennan

Road to view several lots owned by the City to see if we could locate a tower

that might work for us. He said with the City property, with the tower put on

there with this study done, you still have the opening there; therefore, our

third attempt to try to fill this in by using either City property or existing

structures, could not get the same level of coverage in this area that we offer

to other parts of the surrounding area of Columbus.



He said we wanted to make sure that we exhausted all of our avenues and

that is what we did. He said the Unified Development Ordinance requires that we

obtain a special exception from City Council in order to place a tower in an

industrial zoned property, such as this. He said we believe we have met the

requirements of your ordinance with regards to height, co-location, setbacks,

landscaping, lighting, security and other compliance with local regulations.

He said we did originally apply for 195 ft. but the applicant submitted a memo

stating they would be willing to lower the tower to 180 ft. He said we filed

an application with the Planning Department, which included their site plan,

drawings, disclosure statement, and power of attorney, our fees and etc. He

said they believe they have met the requirements of the application process.



Mr. Rotenstreich said the Planning Department reviewed and recommended

approval of this tower, and the Planning Advisory Commission, we met before

them and they unanimously recommended the application for approval.



He said we believe that we have met all of the requirements to your

ordinance and have submitted all of your application requirements. He said at

some point they did learn of some opposition to the tower, mainly from Midtown

Inc. and Ms. Teresa Tomlinson. He said we have met with Ms. Tomlinson and some

of the board members twice to resolve some of the issues that were brought up.

He said they tried to work on those issues that included looking at the City

property and things of that nature and doing the dual co-location on those

other towers trying to work something out where they could step away from

having to build this site. He said when all was said and done, the only way to

provide the same level of coverage in this area as we do in other parts of

Columbus, was to build this tower.



Mr. Rotenstreich said there were a couple of issues that came up that he

wanted to discuss. He said the first that came up during those meetings was the

use of the co-locations on the several towers, which he has shown you. He said

another issue, which came up was the concern about redevelopment in this area,

which obviously is a concern and then the concern would be that the cell tower

might impinging on that redevelopment process. He said in this day and time, he

thinks he would probably argue the opposite that having this technology

available in this area would actually increase the changes of positive

redevelopment in this area. He said he has an example and then showed

photographs of the intersection of I-75/85 and I-20 downtown Atlanta on a

project called Capital Gateway. He said Capital Gateway is a redevelopment

project that was over $202 million set aside for the project, which consists of

34 acres and there are plans to have apartments, townhouses, condos, retail and

some single family homes.



He also showed photographs of what has been built at Capital Gateway so

far and then showed a map of the area of Capital Gateway Complex and also

pointed out that there are two cell towers which are near the project and was

located there before the project began. He said he showed you this example to

let you know that they don?t think a cell tower in this area would stymie any

redevelopment, this is an example to show you that is truly not the case and it

might even assist in the redevelopment process.



Mr. Rotenstreich said these are some of the major issues that they

discussed with Midtown, Inc. and Ms. Teresa Tomlinson. He said they have

performed a balloon test in the area as required by the ordinance on October

2nd for about 3? hours. He said they hung a balloon out there at the height of

the proposed tower so that neighbors could see it and come by and anyone that

had questions could come by and look. He said they then took 24 photographs

from different areas around that balloon to show what it looks like and said

the report was included in your packet. He said from those 24 locations there

were only six areas that you could see the balloon at all and said with that

said, they believe they have met the requirements of your ordinance and would

respectfully request that you grant the approval of this proposed tower in this

proposed area so that we can provide the same type service here as we do in

other parts of Columbus.



Councilor Woodson said at this time she is not prepared to take a vote on

this matter. She said she received the information that was provided to us

today and sees where the tower is 180 ft limit by local ordinance, but said she

was speaking with staff because the gentleman has said the requirement was 200

feet and there seems to be a conflict in the ordinance. She said there is a

sentence that says 180 ft. but in the chart it says 200 ft. She said after

speaking with staff too, she understood that they were not a part of the last

meeting that this discussion occurred. She said she would like to be educated

before she takes a vote. She said she asked the staff why it wasn?t brought to

our attention earlier and said they have good justification that they didn?t

want to seem biased to one or the other group, but she thinks it is important

that we look at that and understand that both parties are correct based on our

ordinance.



Mr. Rotenstreich said he appreciates Councilor Woodson asking that

question and said that is a point that he would like to bring up. He said they

did originally apply for 195 ft. tower, but said there should be a memo from

the applicant saying that they would be willing to lower the tower to 180 ft.

He said they did go back to AT&T again after meeting with some folks from the

area and that was another issue; he did forget to bring that up. He said that

is something that they did to try to appease the situation which was lower it

to 180 ft.



Councilor Woodson then asked Mr. Rotenstreich if he is ready and prepared

to lower the tower from 195 ft to 180 ft., to which he said yes.



Councilor Woodson then asked City Attorney Fay what would they have to do,

would they need to amend the Resolution?



City Attorney Fay said you could simply condition the resolution,

condition it on being no more than 180 ft. tall; say the height should not

exceed 180 ft. Councilor Woodson said she would like to make that

recommendation, condition the resolution to state that any tower should be no

more than 180 ft.



City Attorney Fay said you could go ahead and vote on that as an amendment

right now, if you want to.



City Manager Hugley said he just want to make sure that each member of the

Council has heard the explanation given to Councilor Woodson, maybe before the

vote, if you so desire, he want to make clear that there are two different

heights mentioned in the ordinance and we have been bringing back corrections

to the Unified Development Ordinance to you on a monthly basis where we are

cleaning up typos and some errors in the Unified Development Ordinance and said

this particular one has not come forward, but it has been noted and will be

coming forward regarding the height distance. He said he would like for our

Planning Department to mention that so that each member of Council will hear

the same thing.



Councilor Woodson said she was going to ask him (Will Johnson) to come

forward.



City Manager Hugley said he wanted them to be aware because it will be

changed.



Mr. Will Johnson then came forward and said to clarify what the City

Manager just said, in the text of this section of the Unified Development

Ordinance it says the maximum height of a tower in this zoning district is 180

feet and in the table below it, it says 200 feet. He said our previous zoning

administrator brought this to our attention back in May or June and it was

placed on the list of things to be updated; and of course, this case came along

right after that and we have held it, not wanting to bring it back to look like

we are trying to change the ordinance in the middle of a contentious zoning

issue. He said it is something that is going to come when this is concluded. We

have been following the table every since the UDO was enacted in 2005, which

sets that height at 200 feet in an LMI zone.



City Manager Hugley said when you bring it back you anticipate we are

going to bring back the 200 feet because that was the intent of what it should

be, although one section says 180 feet and the section below says 200 feet.

He said the intent was 200 feet and we will come back and change the 180 feet

to 200 feet at some point.



Mr. Johnson said yes, sir.



Councilor Barnes said he has a concern, a number of concerns and said, as

you very well know. I am not going to vote for this at all. He said the first

concern that he has deals with the Columbus Municipal Code Section 3.2-72 (k),

which states, a tower structure shall not be placed within 300 ft. of a

residential structure. Then it says (c), which qualifies it, saying setbacks

should be based on the entire lot, which the tower is located and shall not be

applied to any lease area within the host parcel. He said he would like to

call up Ms. Teresa Tomlinson because we did some measurements. He said unless

he is reading that incorrectly, ? he went out and measured that.

He said from the entire lot it does not approximate 300 ft. He said that is

basis enough for the ordinance to be denied.



Mr. Rotenstreich asked Councilor Barnes what measurement did he get?



Councilor Barnes said exactly what it says. He said you could read it.



Mr. Rotenstreich said he want to make sure because they have a survey of

that property and the intent was to meet that 300 foot setback.



Councilor Barnes said but it didn?t, not from the property line it

didn?t. He said he measured it twice, in fact, he and his wife went out and

measured it with a tape measure and measured it twice and then I asked someone

else to go out after me and measure it. He said it doesn?t approximate the

district at all. He said I?m going to tell you what I did, because I know how

legal issues are; I?m not an attorney, but I took it to a couple of them to see

whether I was reading it correctly. He said they said, Pops, it says exactly

the way it reads, so that is reason enough for it to be denied; and it says the

entire lot. He said he just wanted to be sure he was right and when we met the

first time, I saw it and I said I know that other people must be reading this

also, but I?m a nurse and so, I said let me find out whether I?m reading this

correctly or not. He said this is reason enough to deny this request because it

stipulates the entire lot.



City Attorney Fay then asked the proponent if he wanted to respond.



Mr. Rotenstreich said other than putting up the survey I don?t know how to

respond to Mr. Barnes other than saying it does meet those setbacks. He said

he believes the Planning Department checked those things and their approval,

for they were recommending approval.



Councilor Barnes said, like I told you I?m a nurse and my grandmother

taught me if you could decipher a little bit and read a little bit, you can

make it in the world; so, I can decipher a little, count a little and I think I

can read a little. He said just to check himself; ? he took it to a couple

friends of his who can read a little bit as well. He then asked Mr. Rodenstrike

to read that for him.



Mr. Rotenstreich said he is not questioning the wording, he is just saying

he believes it?s 300 feet. Councilor Barnes said, but it isn?t, not from the

entire lot, it isn?t.



City Attorney Fay said he thinks that we are talking about two different

setbacks.



Councilor Barnes said, I beg your pardon.



City Attorney Fay said he thinks that we are talking about two different

setbacks. He said the first setback in Item A is the 300-foot setback from the

tower itself, residential property.

Councilor Barnes said, Mr. City Attorney you and I have talked about this

before. I am going to tell you something Mr. City Attorney, I?m not an

attorney, but I can read. Now, I would like for you, it says the tower

structure shall not be placed within 300 feet of a residential structure,

that?s (a). (c) which qualifies it, says setback shall be based on the entire

lot on which the tower is located and shall not be applied to any lease area

within the host parcel; the entire lot.

City Attorney Fay said he thinks what they are talking about in (c), as we

have discussed is the building setback on the interior of the property in

question where you would have a 15 or 20 foot building setback go around the

entire property, otherwise it wouldn?t make any sense because if you had a

1,000 acre parcel, you couldn?t put a tower in the middle of a 1,000 acre

parcel, if there was a house next door. I thank you are reading it wrong

councilor.

Councilor Barnes said I know I am reading this correctly. City Attorney

Fay said he respectfully disagrees.

Councilor Barnes said he respectfully disagrees, not only for him, but

also for the number of people he had to look at this. He said what this says in

your inference. He said there is a difference between inference and what this

is reading. He said what this says exactly stipulates the entire, there is no

inference in this here; it says the entire lot, and on that basis alone, it

denies your application.

Mr. Rotenstreich, speaking to Councilor Barnes, said he is not here to

argue, but in looking at (a) where it says the tower structure must be 300

feet, so what would be the setback that it is referring to in (c).

Councilor Barnes said the setback should be based on the entire lot that

the tower is on and if you measure from that property line to the residence,

it?s not 300 feet, as I have done it twice. He said, so in that instance, it

should be denied. You act like this is information to you.

Mr. Rotenstreich said I?ve always believed we have met the setbacks and I

believe we meet them here.

Councilor Barnes said the difference between reading the written word and

inference. The same thing that Councilor Woodson was talking about in our

Planning Department; and I have spoken to the Planning Department about this.

This is no news to the Planning Department or the City Attorney because I

brought it up to them early on. You have to go by the written word, not

inference; what the Planning Department meant to say, you have to go by what?s

stipulated here. He said the reason he wanted it up on the screen so that

everybody can read it. It says the entire lot and because of that, for that one

reason alone, this should be denied. He said there are a number of reasons why

it should be and I?m going to ask Ms. Teresa Tomlinson to speak about

development, but on that reason alone it should be denied. I have nothing

against, ?but I?m going by what I?m reading.

Mr. Rotenstreich said he and Councilor Barnes have met on this and have

had very productive conversations.

Councilor Barnes said he appreciates Mr. Rotenstreich coming down and all

that he did, but from the standpoint of his district, it?s not only the fact of

it?s not in compliance and Pops Barnes didn?t write this, this was written

before I came on City Council and that?s why I doubled checked myself to be

sure that I was correct; and I asked more than one attorney like our attorney

here and not to belittle our attorney, everyone I spoke to read it the same way

except our city attorney. He said he would like for Ms. Teresa Tomlinson to be

heard.

Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said the point that bothers her is that every

time that we have a tower issue, the same thing comes up time after time, and

if you would go back and get the minutes when we first set up the legislation

to build cell towers in this community, it supposed to be measured from

property line to property line, the same as we do for the alcoholic beverage

ordinance; property line to property line. It?s amazing how we get brain dead a

few years later. She said you need to go back and look at the legislative

intent of when the ordinance was originally set up; and it was not from

building to building, but it was from property line to property line because

different people had different setbacks and they could go out there and setback

something two feet beyond the 300 feet. She said that is why we went from

property line to property line and we are not applying it now.

City Attorney Fay said when you apply the rules of statutory construction,

which is what we have to do as lawyers, to try to harmonize (a) with (c), (c)

means something different from (a) otherwise it wouldn?t be there; and that is

the way the courts would construe the statute and if you also read the

definition of setback in the Unified Development Ordinance. In the UDO setback

means the distance from the property line to the nearest part of the applicable

building, or structure, and in this case, the tower, or sign measured

perpendicularly to the property line.

Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said Clifton, you talk about what the UDO has

changed, go back and look at Council?s original intent and the sad part about

this is, we sit here week after week, month after month and year after year

relying on the staff to tell us when things have severely changed and a lot of

times we don?t find out that things have changed in ordinances until something

comes up like this, but look at what we intended when the ordinance was set up

originally. She said there was a lot of discussion about cell tower locations

in this community. Pop Barnes may not have been here, but I was here and I was

part of that discussion. She said we were supposed to be measuring these

properties from property line to property line to keep confusion down.

City Attorney Fay said we have to go with the definitions and the setback

revisions that are in place and we have to try to harmonize with them, is all

that we can do.

Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said so that means what we did, when we set up

the cell tower legislation, it means absolutely nothing.

City Attorney Fay said in his view these are two different types of

setbacks in (a) and (c). He said other people might disagree.

Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said she is not talking about setbacks. She said

the whole issue is, if a cell tower can go on a piece of property that is

within 200 or 300 feet of a residential property.

City Attorney Fay then asked Mr. Rotenstreich where is it going to go on

the property.

Mr. Rotenstreich said well here is the survey. He said the square is the

actual lease area and the tower would be in the center.

Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said if it doesn?t have anything to do with the

location on that piece of property of the cell tower, but when Council setup

the cell tower ordinance, it was said that it would be measured from property

line to property line, not from where the building structure went in a

residential piece of property; that?s two totally different things.

City Attorney Fay said he doesn?t know if the staff wants to comment on

that, but they can, if they recall the intent.

Councilor Barnes said he had three attorneys to read it and they said they

don?t agree with you, and Ms. Teresa Tomlinson is the fourth one. He said he

doesn?t know anything about legal, but I know about reading. He said that?s why

he couldn?t understand when he came to you. He said this is why he is so glad

that we have TV here, people watching and he can put something up, so he didn?t

want anyone to think that he made something up because he is new on city

council and you have the history here. He said he likes you as a person, and he

thinks that you are a good attorney, but that?s why some things are suspect

with me because of tricking their words and turning things around to fit the

occasion. I don?t like that and I don?t like that done. We have to be open and

up, that?s why I am glad we have the TV and glad we do have this, which is

accessible to everybody because I know what I read and the reason that I am

upset is because we went around and around about this issue for weeks.

City Attorney Fay said we met on this in his office for an hour and he

told you that he disagreed with your reading of that ruling.

Councilor Barnes said I am going to be honest with you, I respect you; but

you can bet your bottom dollar that when it comes to you reading something, I

am going to make sure I get it checked and doubled checked because you are

definitely reading wrong on this. He said as far as development issues, when

our Planning Department; this is not you, but it's us here, our Planning

Department. I have approached Mr. Rick Jones and I also approached the City

Manager, and I also approached the City Attorney about this one issue; this is

not you, this is internal here. Addressing developmental issues, I certainly

disagree with you on this.

He said in his district there are definitely areas that needs development

and he thinks that he mentioned to you that he had problems because he feels

that in this particular areas there are certainly social justice issues here,

and I am not talking social justice; race, black, white, brown, yellow, I'm

talking social economic class here. In that particular area you have

multi-generational families. You've been there and you've seen how congested

that area is. I went there and walked door to door and I got a survey of

concerns of the people. There is that electrical tower located there. If you

just look at the area here, you can know that this area needs a lot of work.

(Councilor Barnes showed photographs of the area.) He said look at the boarded

windows in that area and look how congested these buildings are, lined up. Look

how close the electrical tower is to the residences.

He said right across the road from the tower is where Mr. Rotenstreich

wants to put the tower. He said the people are concerned and said they say that

they get so many hits on that electrical station what is that tower going to

do. He said I know you are going to ground it, but that doesn't stop the hits.

He said perception is 98% reality for these people that have to live there 365

days a year. He said it is a definite concern for these people that have to

live here. He said this would give you an idea of what these people will have

to live with this tower because they already have the electrical tower there.

Councilor Barnes said he is going to ask Ms. Teresa Tomlinson, ?he has

been fortunate because there is a number of organizations, Neighbor Works want

to build it up, Midtown, Inc., has taken an interest in developing areas that

need development and in conjunction with our comprehensive plan; which our

comprehensive plans says and identifies this particular area. He said these are

his concerns that he has spoken about. He then asked Ms. Teresa Tomlinson to

speak to the development aspects.

Ms. Teresa Tomlinson, representing Midtown Inc., 1236 Wildwood Ave., said

Midtown, Inc., does come with approval of the board to speak in opposition to

the application. She said we have made formal submissions to the Clerk of

Council and each of you have our submissions. She said she

would like to walk through their grounds for opposition quickly and then open

up the matter for discussion, if you should have any. She said she would hope

that this gives you great comfort to know that this application can be denied

on multiple grounds, and you do not here, have to resolve the 300 feet issue,

although she agrees with Councilor Pops Barnes, in and of itself that is the

grounds which would require denial of this application. She said that

individual ground does not need to be resolved here today. You all may well

know that these types of incidences, these applications for zoning and special

exception use comes before you all the time and they are fairly routine; seemly

small and singularly and insignificant, but the fact of the matter is that some

of them have long range and significant impact on the community, so I am going

to ask today that we stop for a moment and look at this seemly insignificant

application and look at its long term effects.



You'll know that we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars as a

community redoing our comprehensive plan in the ways of fees for outside expert

consultants and many, many hours spent by our staff in public hearings;

hundreds of citizens that came out to speak and let their ideas be known as to

how the city needed to grow. She said the major objective that came out of the

comprehensive plan, which has been formally adopted by this Council, is that we

needed to renew our in-town community and repopulate our in-town community. She

said there was great support for this in the 90th and 94th percentile in the

in-town community, but in the 75th and 78th percentile even in communities of

Councilor Davis and Councilor Allen because the suburbanization of our growth

patterns in the past are infringing upon the rural community that we have here.

She said the land use, people like the opportunity to have larger land lots

within our county. She said our comprehensive plan was a culmination of all of

those views and though they came from different prospective, they were

unanimous in their cry that they wanted a re-population, reinvestment and

renewal of our in-town community; so when we look at these individual requests

we have to remember that I will say that the comprehensive plan and its

objectives that I have just stated are absolutely consistent with $350,000, 3 ?

year Midtown project plan. She said that is why she is here because this area is

immediately on their border and will affect the Midtown project revitalization

efforts. She said that you do know that all of these rezoning requests and

special exception use requests are no different; it's basically a balancing.

She said under statutory law, in the State of Georgia, you'll have extreme

broad authority to balance the general welfare of the community as it is in

this instance described in our comprehensive plan and Midtown, project plan

against the request of the applicant's use. She said that is indeed very broad

and in fact includes safety, even morality, and ?the mere esthetics interest?.

She said we are not relying on ?mere esthetics interest? but she just wants you

to appreciate how incredibly broad, your authority is, as you sit here and

consider these items here today. She said she wanted to address several things,

but she wants to touch on the concept of the existing tower. She said

unfortunately they weren't able to upload all of these exhibits.



Ms. Tomlinson then showed several exhibits, which she said was submissions

made by AT& T by their frequency measuring engineers that was actually

submitted to staff and subsequently replaced after conversations between

herself and some of other representatives and the applicants with much more

favorable measurement. She said she thinks the very less that we can draw from

that is that the competing measurement should be cumulative in comparison. She

said there is cell phone coverage in this area but it is simply lower than the

applicant desires.



She said we feel, as set out in our ordinance, as public policy decisions

made by this Council previously options for AT & T to have very, very good, if

not excellence cell phone coverage by using the existing cell phone towers that

we have and avoiding all of this discussion all together. She said that

certainly would be our proposal.



Ms. Tomlinson said she has provided you with excerpts from our

comprehensive plan that are on point as it relates to the use of this potential

area. She said it is interesting to note that this area sits on the basin of

the Bull Creek stream and she knows that Councilor Anthony was with the Chamber

of Commerce on our Inter-city visit this year when we went to Fort Worth and

they have utilized their stream basins; these seemingly insignificant creeks

that run throughout communities as economic redevelopment opportunities. She

said they have taken the concept that they use with their riverfront

redevelopment, much like our riverfront redevelopment and they have

extrapolated it and expanded to their stream basins. Whenever they have a

floodplain instead of seeing that as an economic impediment, they now are

turning those floodplains into parks, walking trails and creating civic

amenities out of them. She said whenever you have a civic amenity, if every

stream basin becomes a civic amenity, then you have the opportunity for

economic renewal, residential use and office use immediately adjacent to that

civic amenity. She said the comprehensive plan map that she has provided in the

excerpt shows you that this stream basin is pursuant to our plan to be used as

a conservation park recreation area; so, that has already been considered by

our staff, by the consulting experts and input from citizens pursuant to our

comprehensive plan.



She said one of the reasons why this cell phone tower is so troublesome is

because it sits in between the developable land and the floodplain that would

be the civic amenity and the major road that is immediately adjacent to it,

which means that land is potentially the most valuable area for redevelopment

opportunity and that is why this is such a concern. She said we have also

supplied you with an expert report from Tunnell-Spangler-Walsh, who is

intimately familiar with our plans, which is Exhibit ?F? of the materials that

you have been provided. They assisted in the Midtown project plan and we sought

their expertise in this incident here.



Ms. Tomlinson said we realize that this area is presently zoned industrial

and this is not an application to rezone it to something else and said her plea

to you is to simply not put a permanent structure that could affect us doing

something different in the future that would be more residential, office or

recreational use by approving this application; it would be detrimental to the

possibilities that are set forth and articulated in this expert report. They

have also provided in Exhibit ?G?, excerpts of the Midtown Project plan, which

shows back a few years ago this plan identified this area as again being in a

stream basin and a potential area for walking trails, biking trails and park

areas which is desperately needed in this community and essential for economic

renewal.



She said this business about the 300 feet, residential properties within

300 feet and said she does agrees with Councilor Barnes? interpretation, as

well as what the other lawyers have said. She said the reason why is because it

is defined as a setback, if you look at the heading of that particular

provision, it says setback and then goes on to define four different kinds of

setback; so, your subsection (a) is a definition of a type of setback.

Subsection (c) qualifies subsection (a). She said she thinks you have a problem

on your hand if you approve this and even for those who doubt her

interpretation and reading; that?s fine, but the 300 feet prohibition is an

absolute statutory prohibition, you cannot allow a cell phone tower within 300

feet, even if it is read as some have suggested here today, which she contend

is incorrect; but you have the discretion to deny a cell phone tower that is in

excess of 300 feet from a residential use. You have that discretion when you

consider the totality of the circumstances presented here today. So, I ask you,

do 39 feet make a difference really? Does 39 feet make a difference in your

exercise of your discretion? She said even if you doubt the strict reading of

the 300 feet prohibition as I have suggested, ask yourself does 39 feet makes

that big a difference to you, because I would suggest to you that it shouldn?t.

She said if you are thoroughly convinced with the proposed reading that says it

has to be 300 feet from the host property, which I would suggest is the correct

reading; this is something that we have received from city staff showing that

it is approximately 70 feet so it is nowhere near the 300 feet maximum.



Ms. Tomlinson said as to Councilor Woodson?s amendment, which she

certainly appreciates, this application came in at 195 foot and vacillated to

200 feet application; we brought it to the attention of the City Attorney, who

concurred that a monopole had to be 180 feet. She said she understands from the

City Manager and others that now they are going to bring to you, a request for

modifying the ordinance in the future and that?s fine, but one of the reasons

you see your graffling with these 300 feet issues, and that?s a typo, and oh,

we?ve missed read it and it really means building setback guidelines and oh, it

says 200 feet here and 180 feet here, is this, if it is 180 feet because it

qualifies monopoles have to be limited to 180 feet. A cell phone tower can be

up to 200 feet unless it is a monopole; and so, we say don?t be tentative about

your own statures. We adopted these things, they were unified development

ordinances, and we went out as staff, city council and citizens and we pulled a

uniform ordinance from other communities where it worked and we brought it here

and you went through all kinds of sessions, learning it, having informational

sessions and debated it and then you enacted it. Now, what you see happening

is we find out that other communities has very particularized statutes that

mean something to them.

And so, what we are doing is saying, this isn?t convenient and it makes us have

to really think about it and discern the difference between a monopole and a

cell phone tower. She said this is difficult for a reason and the other reasons

other communities come up with these statutes is because they too have thought

about it long and hard. You may have amended it,.... I?m not here to argue for

or against that today, but I?m here to argue that under the law you have, this

is due to be denied, but I would suggest to you to embrace your statutes, they

state that for a reason, they really do mean something. It is not over and over

again, an accident, but it?s purposeful. That?s my final comment, other than

questions; again, we will request that the tower application be denied.



City Manager Hugley said he thinks that the City Attorney has stated the

staff?s position and of course, the report speaks for itself and that hasn?t

changed at this point.



Speaking to Ms. Tomlinson, Councilor Woodson said she wants to make sure

that we have a clear understanding because you addressed me on this situation.

The reason she asked the question is to be well educated so I can make a

decision that is appropriate. I don?t have the luxury that you have or any

other councilor that can attend every single meeting, I depend on my staff and

my staff is the city?s staff and I feel that if I have a question on something,

it is appropriate for me to ask, to be educated so that when I make that

decision and that vote, that vote is in effect for a lifetime; it isn?t

temporary, so I don?t want you to feel like I was demeaning in any sense, but I

am asking questions because I feel it is important for me to be well educated

in the decision I make and that is the reason why she said that she is not

prepared to vote because she needed to get a great understanding of what was

occurring and when I made the suggestion, it is because I have always decided

that if I?m going to lose in a battle or something, I want to get as much as I

can get out of that battle before I lose. So, the reason for my amendment that

if there were people who was going to vote in favor, she wanted to make sure

that we have something in place to protect that community, so I want to make

sure that I make myself clear that is my reason. And, as an elected official I

feel that?s my job to do, to question the unknown and get clarity before I make

a decision.



Ms. Tomlinson said she certainly don?t want to leave the misimpression

that she would disagree with that at all. She said she commends you for asking

that question and in fact, she thinks your amendment corrected the otherwise

erroneous application staff report and ordinances submitted, which is clearly

in conflict with the law, so, I think Councilor Woodson, you did what needed to

be done and we thank you.



Councilor Anthony, speaking to Ms. Tomlinson, said when he?s looking at

the coverage factor of the SBA tower only and after clear channel, if you put

those two together it looks like it covers pretty much.



Ms. Tomlinson said she thinks you do have to consider, in that submission,

the application didn?t submit a coverage graphic that showed both

simultaneously the antennas on both towers, but she thinks that you can clearly

look and see that is the areas.



Councilor Anthony said in your strategic plans is there a desire to

redevelop this area into residential areas.



Ms. Tomlinson said for many of us who have seen this area for so long and

come to know it as a manufacturing area and an area that is terribly downturn

economic, many cannot envision the possibilities, but we have seen by traveling

to other communities that these areas are revitalized; and absolutely,

Councilor Anthony, when you are talking about the population influx from BRAC,

this area should be some of the most sought after property to repopulate

residentially. She said this area is also immediately off of a five point, an

existing arterial road network that is very, very valuable from a redevelopment

standpoint. She said anytime you have a five points of road, a conversion of

roads, this community, this staff, this council should know that this is a very

ripe redevelopment area and that is another reason why this concerns us.



Councilor Hunter said he always considers esthetics whenever we have these

issues that come up before Council no matter what neighborhood we are talking

about. He said he thinks that esthetics should not be downplayed especially in

South Columbus because what we are trying to do now; especially work to

beautify our neighborhoods in South Columbus and to try to have a vision for

those neighborhoods that are challenged esthetically; so, that is to take a

neighborhood that doesn?t look pristine, but look at what is possible, what we

can to do to make that possible. He said in light of that, he try to ask

himself in the long run, looking at the big picture; does this benefit the

neighborhood or benefit the potential for that community. He said with regard

to this particular application, it presents a negative to the potential

development of that community. He said we have seen in other neighborhoods in

this city, where communities have been positively developed and have achieved

their potential. He said one thing that the citizens in South Columbus asks, is

why not us. He said they have said day in and day out, we have to look at

negative landscapes and vistas, why can?t

we have an effort to have something positive done in our community; my question

would be, what message do we send to that community, if we vote

yes on allowing this to come in. He said again, the City Manager is working

now to try to do things that are going back to the areas that have challenges

in South Columbus and this area is one of those areas that have challenges. He

said we don?t simply throw up our hands and say, this is the way it shall

always be, but instead what we need to do is to decide, how can we make it

matter and one of those ways is to close your eyes and image what that

community could look like. He said if you do certain things now, then you are

permanently affecting negatively that community.



Councilor Hunter said in doing the balancing act and waiving this, he

cannot support this. He said money doesn?t drive everything and sometimes you

have to go beyond that and you have to think about people and children who

lives in an area and what they have to look at everyday; so, in looking at

everything, he cannot support this.



Councilor Barnes said that was his point; over and above, it should be

denied on the fact on something that states it. He said you saw the pictures

where those people have to live. He said when he said social justices, he

meant, ? you have in that area, how congested it is. He said in that area, you

have blacks, whites, Hispanic families; so it is not race, but it is a class

thing; and said that is the reason he took that picture of the trash there

because they went in and emptied it, and the driver just drove off and left the

trash there. He said as Councilor Hunter has said, why, not us. He said there

are multi-generational families there, a number of them, where the grandmother,

daughter and children live.

He said one lady said to him that she has had to live there in that area, but

her wish is for her grandchildren to live in an area that?s better. Just think

about that; just think on an individual basis, your own self, maybe your own

children, or your grandchildren and what you want for them. Anything that would

develop that area, those are good people that live there, but because of their

social economic conditions that is where they have to live. He said the outside

of the homes may not look good, but when you go inside, you can see how

meticulous they are, how clean the inside of the homes are; these are

taxpayers, those are people who want the best for themselves and the best for

their children; therefore, he cannot support this. He said thanks to Midtown,

Inc., and a lot of other individuals who have come down to let him know exactly

how that area can be for the residents. He said he has talked with Councilor

Baker on issues of that nature and said development can be there. He said Ms.

Tomlinson is 150% correct as to that being in our comprehensive plan and we are

moving in the right direction for the citizens of Columbus and that is what we

should do and for that reason, he would have to move to deny this matter.

Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh.



City Attorney Fay said we still have a motion to amend the resolution to

limit the height to 180 feet.



Councilor Woodson said she was trying to protect it, because she doesn?t

have a consensus of how everyone is going to vote and said if it was to pass,

she wanted to make sure there were safeguards. She said that is the reason for

it and she wish everyone would respect her, because she can?t tell how anyone

is going to vote and we just wanted to make sure there is a safeguard place and

the Mayor Pro Tem just seconded it, so I hope I get support on it.



Mayor Wetherington then asked if there was any further discussion on the

Council?s motion. The Mayor then called the question on the motion to amend

the resolution to state that the tower shall be no more than 180 feet in

height, which carried unanimously by those nine members of Council present at

the time, with Councilor Davis being absent for this vote.



Mayor Wetherington then asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak

on this matter.



City Attorney Fay then asked if there was anyone who was opposed to this

matter who wanted to speak.



Mr. Bert Coker, 5815 Ventura Drive said when you all have these zoning

issues like this and they get contentions like this? I?ve seen a lot of them,

I?ve seen the one where the people didn?t want a Walgreen?s, I?ve seen the one

where they wanted to put a cement plan somewhere and they didn?t want the

cement plant, but this one, to him, like Pops Barnes said, is one? he remember

that they wanted to put a night club in his area of town, which is up by the

airport, but they couldn?t do it, because the nightclub was within 300 feet of

a church; and it was the law. He said that?s law, so follow the law, that?s all

you have to do.







Mr. Rotenstreich, the petitioner said he just wanted to touch on a couple

of issues. He said he knows that Mr. Hunter and Mr. Barnes are trying to

protect the community and are trying to give the best to the community and said

we are too, in a way. He said there is another side of this. He said the

redevelopment starts with providing the infrastructure and services in those

areas. He said he would argue that these people?s lives are going to be made

better by having the same access to these services that the other portions of

Columbus have already. He said he understands what you are saying

Mr. Hunter, he believes there is another side to this and he is not just trying

to throw out the company?s slogan, but send a message to the community that

they are entitled to the same services that the other parts of the community

gets. Why not us, why not them, why do they not get the same services?



He said he need to address the question you had about the propagation

maps. He said when they initially filed their application there was a set of

propagation maps that just showed before and after, it did not show the other

co-location opportunities for the city property. He said those were zoomed in a

little bit because we weren?t looking at a very wide graphical area and then we

were asked to provide a broader picture, so we zoomed back. He said AT& T then

submitted a second set of propagation maps that was zoomed out, which are the

ones that you do have; but when you zoom out that changes your whole

calculations and those propagation maps that you have are wrong. He said when

they realized it; they submitted the correct propagation maps, which are the

ones that he showed you. He said the ones that he showed you here today are the

ones that are supported by the Engineering Department at AT&T as to what the

cover will be with those sites. He said he just wanted to make sure you

understood that. He said not being served was the terms that he used before

hand and he did use, not being served, but he want to make sure that he finish

that sentence. He said this area was not being served as well as other parts of

Columbus. He said he is not saying this area had no coverage; I think in some

areas during some times of the day, during certain foliage of the trees, yes,

you can make a call in this area, but we are trying to get the same level of

coverage here to these folks.



He said he believes that they have really tried to meet on both sides and

tried to work out some of the issues, but he thinks it got to the point, that

we needed to put it before you folks (Council), as you saw here are the two

sides and make a decision. He said he do believe Ms. Tomlinson?s words, to

embrace your statutes is very important. He said this property today is zoned

industrial, today, it is allowed in your ordinance, if we meet the requirements

of the ordinance. Today, we do meet the requirements of your ordinance. I don?t

know if I need to get into the setback issue, but I do respectfully disagree

with Mr. Barnes? interpretation. If you look at it, it says a tower structure,

the structure, the tower, could be 300 feet from the nearest residential area.

That?s the only place, the 300 feet is mentioned, the structure will be 300

feet from the residences and this meets that requirement; so, please, do

embrace your statute, your ordinance, as we believe we have met it. Today, we

believe that we have met all of the burdens that have been set out in your

ordinance, so we will respectfully request that we be allowed to construct this

tower at the 180-foot height to provide services in this area.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------

NOTE: Councilor Davis left the meeting at 7:35 p.m.



-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------



Mayor Wetherington then called the question on Councilor Barnes? motion to

deny the resolution, which was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and then

carried unanimously by those nine members of Council present at the time, with

Councilor Davis being absent for this vote.



Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said we need to go back and look at this

ordinance, the cell tower location ordinance, even if it means that you have to

go back when we first set it up; one of the things we charged the Planning

Department with at that time, when we said from property line to property line,

we also charged the Planning Department to go find sites that will be good

sites for cell towers to come in Columbus and locate and then bring those back

to Council. She thinks that we have gotten away from that, because we didn?t

want a cell tower on every block in this community and the Planning Department

was charged with going out finding sites that would be applicable to cell

towers, and she thinks you need to get busy on doing that.



City Attorney Fay said the Planning Department has their charge to look at

a possibly amendment on any one of the setback rules.



Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh asked the Clerk of Council and her staff to go

back and pull the old minutes that the Council had in their long discussion

regarding location of cell towers. She said it was not an overnight fix when we

set up the cell tower ordinance.



City Attorney Fay said the matter has been denied and the court reporter

has taken down the entire record on that issue.



City Attorney Fay said the Planning Director is reminding us, for the

record, that the Council needs to state along with its vote of denial, that the

denial is based upon the esthetics in the neighborhood, the quality of life and

whatever else you want to put in the record. He said on top of the vote, we

need to have in the record, a substantial interest that the denial is based

upon, like esthetics for the neighborhood.



Mayor Wetherington said this Council has voted City Attorney and he thinks

that is sufficient.



City Attorney Fay said we are going to defend the action he is just trying

to follow the Directors? advice. He said he agrees the vote has been taken.



Mayor Wetherington said it has been voted down.



*** *** ***









THE FOLLOWING NINE RESOLUTIONS WERE SUBMITTED BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY AND

THEIR CAPTIONS READ BY MAYOR PRO TEM TURNER PUGH AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL

PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTION OF A SINGLE MOTION MADE BY MAYOR PRO TEM TURNER PUGH

AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR MCDANIEL, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE NINE

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL PRESENT AT THE TIME, WITH COUNCILOR DAVIS HAVING ALREADY

LEFT THE MEETING:

______________________________





A Resolution (16-09) - Expressing appreciation to Mrs. Willie Marie

Battle upon her retirement from the Muscogee Manor and Rehab Center

after 24 years of service.



A Resolution (17-09) ? Expressing appreciation to Mr. John Gray Conger

upon his retirement from the District Attorney?s Office after 35 years of

service.



A Resolution (18-09) ? Expressing appreciation to Chief Judge Kenneth

B. Followill upon his retirement from Muscogee County Superior Court

after 44 years of service.



A Resolution (19-09) ? Expressing appreciation to Mrs. Sherry A. Gray

upon her retirement from the Columbus Metropolitan Airport after 30 years

of service.



A Resolution (20-09) ? Expressing appreciation to Chief Deputy Jimmy H.

Griffin upon his retirement from the Muscogee County Sheriff?s Department after

40 years of service.



A Resolution (21-09) ? Expressing appreciation to Mrs. Marie Jackson

upon her retirement from the Muscogee County Adult Probation after 27

years of service.



A Resolution (22-09) ? Expressing appreciation to Sheriff Ralph B. Johnson

upon his retirement from the Muscogee County Sheriff?s Department after 26

years of service.



A Resolution (23-09) ? Expressing appreciation to Judge Henry

H. Turner, III upon his retirement from the Muscogee County Municipal

Court after 20 years of service.



A Resolution (24-09) - Conveying condolences to the family of Mr. Terry

L. Sellers, employee with Land and Forestry, who passed away on January

7, 2009.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------

PUBLIC AGENDA:



MS. LINDA GEORGE, RE: INCREASED

TAXATION:________





Ms. Linda George came forward and said she is representing 6225 Old Towne

Drive. She presented each Councilor with a packet of information and explained

that she would be speaking in reference to the Board of Equalization. She said

she has met the standard and paid the $3204.46, which was adjudicated by the

Board of Equalization on December 16, 2008. She said she received a letter

from the State Capital of the Department of Revenue stating that it is the

Counties and not the States? responsibility to equalize taxes between

individual taxpayers.



Councilor Allen made a motion to allow Ms. George to continue her

presentation after the allotted 5 minutes. Seconded by Councilor Woodson and

carried unanimously by those nine members of Council present at the time, with

Councilor Davis being absent for this vote.

Ms. George continued her presentation explaining each page provided in the

packet presented to Council.



*** *** ***



MR, BILL MADISON REPRESENTING THE LOCAL CHAPTER NAACP, RE: THE FREEDOM

FUND

BANQUET__________________





Mr. Bill Madison came forward and stated his address as 974 Overlook

Drive. He said Mr. Marcus Alexander who is the Freedom Fund Chair for the

Freedom Fund Banquet accompanies him. He said the NAACP is ready to celebrate

its 100 years of service to this nation. At this time, Mr. Madison took the

time to invite the members of City Council to the Freedom Fund Banquet to be

held on February 13, 2009.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------

CITY MANAGER?S AGENDA:



THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION, HAVING BEEN INCLUDED WITH THE CITY MANAGER?S

AGENDA WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY MANAGER HUGLEY AND AFTER FURTHER

DISCUSSION WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE COUNCIL:_



A Resolution ? Authorizing the adoption of the Board Training

Certification Program from the Cunningham Center for Leadership

Development, Columbus State University, effective July 1, 2009, for $1,850

per session contingent upon funding in the FY10 Budget and in future

budgets thereafter.



City Manager Hugley said he is requesting approval for the Board Training

Certification Program to be conducted by the Cunningham Center for Leadership

Development effective July 1, 2009.



Councilor McDaniel asked if there had been any problems with the board

members.



City Manager Hugley explained that there had not been any problems but

appointments to the Boards and Commissions are important. He said we have been

sending individuals out to do a task without proper training.



Discussion continued on this matter for approximately ten minutes with

several Council members expressing their views and concerns, after which the

resolution was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the City Manager.

THE FOLLOWING NINE RESOLUTIONS, HAVING BEEN INCLUDED WITH THE CITY

MANAGER?S AGENDA WERE SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY MANAGER HUGLEY AND

ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTION OF A SINGLE MOTION MADE BY

COUNCILOR MCDANIEL AND SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM TURNER PUGH, WHICH CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE NINE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING, WITH

COUNCILOR DAVIS BEING ABSENT FOR THIS VOTE: _

_









A Resolution (25-09) ? Approving the adoption of the FY2010 Holiday

Schedule.



A Resolution (26-09) ? Authorizing the acceptance of a deed to a portion

of Helen Drivel located in Section Three (3) Block E, Buckfield.



A Resolution (27-09) ? Authorizing the submission of an application and if

approved accept a two year grant of $200,000 from the U. S. Department of

Justice for the operation of the Muscogee County Adult Felony Drug Court.



A Resolution (28-09) ? Authorizing payment to Southland Technologies

(Sylvester, Georgia) in the amount of $11,400.00, for HVAC management system

maintenance services performed at the Government Center.



A Resolution (29-09) ? Authorizing the purchase of a GPS/GNSS Dual

Frequency/Rover/Base Station System with Data Collector and operating software

for the Columbus Consolidated Government, from Allen Precision Equipment. The

GPS system is a surveying instrument that will be used at the landfill for the

storm sewer inventory, etc.

A Resolution (30-09) ? Authorizing the execution of a contract with MACTEC

Engineering and Consulting, Inc., for consulting services for historic design

guidelines.



*** *** ***



THE FOLLOWING ADD-ON RESOLUTIONS WERE SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY

MANAGER HUGLEY AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL:__ ________________________



A Resolution (31-09) ? Authorizing the purchase of one (1) 30-Foot low

floor diesel bus from Gillig Corporation (Hayward, CA) in the amount of

$309,407.00. METRA will use this new to replace a unit that has exhausted its

useful life.



A Resolution (32-09) ? Authorizing the purchase of one (1) Trolley

Conversion from Cable Car Classics (Healdsburg, CA), in the amount of

$56,555.24. The vendor will convert a Gillig 30-foot low floor bus to have

the appearance of a vintage trolley.



A Resolution (33-09) ? Authorizing payment to Michael Diggs, Cordelia

Diggs and Montlick & Associates, P.C. in the amount of $20,000.00 to settle a

risk management claim. The claim, which occurred on May 26, 2008, concerns a

Police Officer involved in an accident with a private owned vehicle at the

intersection of Luna Drive.



*** *** ***



OUTDOOR CAF? ORDINANCE:



City Manager Hugley said Dr. Thornson has been before the Council numerous

times expressing his concerns as to whether the Outdoor Caf? Ordinance is being

enforced. He said he, Councilor Woodson and various staff members met with

Dr. Thornson in late 2008. He said we agreed to bring the issues that were

brought to us by Dr. Thornson before the Council in January 2009. He said we

committed to meeting with Dr. Thornson once again before bringing the issues

back to Council. He said after the meeting was scheduled, Dr. Thorson?s lawyer

(Josh Mckoon) indicated that he thought it was premature to meet at that

point. He said at the present time, we are bringing before the Council the 4

areas of concerns expressed to us by Dr. Thorson. He said we would like to

share our response with respect to those 4 areas of concern as well.



Deputy City Manager David Arrington came forward and gave a presentation

based on a memorandum generated by Assistant City Attorney Jamie Deloach, which

addresses the four major concerns as outlined below:



Should bars and night clubs be allowed to have an outdoor caf?:



Deputy City Manager Arrington said we sought guidance from the City

Attorney, and in the definition listed in the UDO it specifically includes

drinking establishments as permissible establishments to have an outdoor caf?.

He said we do not have the authority to deny an application provided that the

business could meet the requirements of the ordinance.



Does the UDO prohibit serving alcohol in outdoor private property

areas:



Deputy City Manager Arrington said there are 2 sections of the UDO, which

are the regulations governing outdoor caf?s in the CRD. He said the second

paragraph 4.2.4 regulates outdoor cafes in other zoning areas in the city. He

said there is some confusing language in that section, specifically saying

(excluding the CRD zoning district). He said someone could read that and have

a different interpretation than what the City Attorney has given us. He said

the guidance that we received back in 2007 in preparation for implementation of

this ordinance said caf?s on private property were not prohibited.



Minors may gain access to liquor in bars and nightclubs if they

are allowed to operate in outdoor caf?:



Deputy City Manager Arrington said the ordinance is in compliance

with state law, it allows persons to eat and drink on the city?s right-of-

way. He said minors may go into locations such as restaurants where

alcohol is being served; an outdoor caf? would not be any different.

However, the outdoor sale of liquor on private property is legal if the

business has an extended facility license from the State of Georgia.



Musical instruments and reproduced music being played within

the outdoor cafes:



Deputy City Manager Arrington said there were some problems with

reproduction of music in an outdoor setting, which was primarily

limited to the radio stations bringing live bands and placing loud

speakers outside. He said some complaints were made to the City?s staff and

the City?s staff collaborated with the Police Department, which they in turn

contacted the radio stations, therefore the live shows were discontinued. He

said there continues to be an issue with the prohibition in the outdoor caf?

ordinance that prohibits the playing of music and the reproduction of sound.

He said one of the restaurants has an outdoor recessed area with small speakers

that play soft music to entertain their guests. He said the speakers are not

on city property and there have been no complaints concerning this type of

sound amplification, but this is an issue that needs to be addressed.



He said as Council directs us, staff will conduct a review of the UDO as

it relates to the purpose and intent of the outdoor caf? and the definition of

who would qualify for an outdoor caf? permit. He said the UDO should be

amended due to code section 4.2.4 having confusing language and said the intent

of the ordinance needs to be clarified. He said as it relates to the outdoor

playing of music, we need to bring the definition in the UDO and the outdoor

caf? ordinance in line with each other.



Councilor Woodson said the intent of her understanding of the outdoor caf?

was only for restaurants, not to include bars. She said she is more in content

and in favor to look at the outdoor caf? to be only for restaurants and not

bars. Councilor Woodson asked Deputy City Manager Arrington if he could bring

some pictures once the survey is completed, to give the Councilors a better

visual of what they are discussing.



*** *** ***



ICE RINK:



Deputy City Manager Arrington said a year and a half ago stakeholders came

before the Council urging them to support the construction of an ice rink and

planning has been under way with it. He said today we are ready to bring forth

3 design options and would like to have Council?s guidance on which design

option we should proceed with.



Design Options:



Level 3 Design: Ice rink that would only be used for ice skating and

hockey competitions. It comes with a seating capacity of 250 for

permanent bench seating and an additional 150 using retractable seating. It

has a minimum number of restrooms required by the code based on the occupancy.

There is no air conditioning but there is dehumidification equipment. The cost

estimate is 6.9 to 8.4 million dollars.



Level 2 Design: Ice rink capable of being used for multiple functions such as: basketball arena

and corporate events. It has bench seating along with the capability of adding

floor seating out on the ice, which will seat another 1600 people. There would

be a requirement for air conditioning and the building would have to be

sprinkled. Additional restrooms would be required based on the code

requirements due to higher occupancy. The cost estimate is 8 to 9.8 million

dollars.



Level 1 Design: Ice rink capable of being used for multiple functions along

with being a larger arena. It has fixed individual seating for up to 1,000

people with an additional 1,600 for floor seating. Because of the additional

square footage, the footprint would have to be larger to accommodate this size

building. A larger air conditioning and sprinkler systems would be required.

There are additional restrooms needed. The cost estimate is 10.2 to 12.4

million dollar.



Councilor Hunter asked if problems would occur in the summer time due to

there being no air conditioning included in Level 3.



Deputy City Manager Arrington said according to the architects, if the ice

remains uncovered there should not be a problem; the problems would occur when

the ice is covered for uses of multi-purpose. He also explained that the ice

should never be covered because the rink would only be used for hockey and

ice-skating.



Mayor Pro Tem Pugh said she thinks that Level 2 would be a better benefit

to the City.



Councilor Henderson said he likes Level 3 with some improvements. He said

he does not feel that there is a need for a multi-use facility. He said he

would like to see the cost differential of the 400 seats compared to the

individual seating.



Councilor Woodson said she is in support of Level 2 and said she does not

think it would be a waste of the City?s money. She said when the skateboard

park was in discussion there was a lot of opposition and a lot of concern, but

it has become one of the most popular spots in Columbus.



City Manager Hugley said if the architect could look at the modifications

in the appropriate timing, we would follow up at the February 10th meeting. He

said we could eliminate Level 1 and bring back Level 3 with some modifications

along with Level 2.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------















CLERK OF COUNCIL?S AGENDA:



CLERK OF COUNCIL WASHINGTON SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AS INFORMATION

FOR THE MAYOR & COUNCIL: ________________________________________________



ACCG?s Legislative Update, Volume 19, Number 1 - January 15, 2009 and Number 2

- January 22, 2009.



GMA?s Legislative Alert, Number 1 ; January 16, 2009.



Memorandum from GMA, Re: Spring Training Sessions, Wednesday, April 1, 2008,

at the Rainwater Conference Center, Valdosta, Georgia.



Memorandum from Clerk of Council Washington, Re: Board of Historic &

Architectural Review.



Memorandum from Clerk of Council Washington, Re: Convention & Visitors Board

of Commissioners.



Memorandum from Clerk of Council Washington, Re: Taxicab Commission.



Biographical Sketch of Mr. Fred Greene, Uptown Columbus Inc. recommendation to

fill the unexpired term of Mr. David Wolfe on the Uptown Facade Board.



Letter from Ms. Ollie Tarver requesting support to defeat legislation to allow

the purchase of alcohol on Sundays in the City of Columbus.



Letter from Ms. Teresa Tomlinson, Midtown Inc., opposing the Special Exception

Use for a wireless communication tower for 425 Old Buena Vista Road.



(10) Letter from Ms. Elizabeth Barker, Historic Columbus Foundation,

requesting that an alternate location be considered for the Special

Exception Use for a wireless communication tower for 425 Old Buena Vista Road.



*** *** ***



THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CLERK OF COUNCIL

WASHINGTON AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL:_________________________________







A Resolution (34-09) ? Approving and receiving the report of the

Finance Director of those alcoholic beverage licenses that were approved

and/or denied during the month of December 2008.



Councilor McDaniel moved the adoption of the resolution. Seconded by

Councilor Allen and carried unanimously by those nine members of Council

present at the time, with Councilor Davis being absent for this vote.

CLERK OF COUNCIL WASHINGTON SUBMITTED MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING BOARDS,

WHICH WERE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED BY THE COUNCIL: _

________________



Board of Tax Assessors, No. 01-09.

Uptown Facade Board, December 15, 2008.



Councilor Allen made a motion that these minutes be received. Seconded by

Councilor McDaniel and carried unanimously by those nine members of Council

present at the time, with Councilor Davis being absent for this vote.



*** *** ***



THE FOLLOWING TWO NEW ZONING PETITIONS, RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY BOTH

THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING DIVISION WERE SUBMITTED BY

CLERK OF COUNCIL WASHINGTON AND AN ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING WAS CALLED FOR

BY COUNCILOR

MCDANIEL:____________________________





Petition submitted by Bill Weathers to rezone 3.1 total acres of property

located at 1100 10th Avenue from LMI (Light Manufacturing Industrial) to GC

(General Commercial). (1-A-09-Weathers)



Petition submitted by Columbus Habitat for Humanity to rezone .5 total

acre of property located at 347, 348 and 361 Bragg Smith from RMF2

(Residential Multi Family 2) to RMF1 (Residential Multi Family 1).

(2-A-09-Columbus Habitat for Humanity)



*** *** ***



BOARD APPOINTMENTS:



C.I.R.C.L.E:



Clerk of Council Washington advised that Ms. Cynthia Maisano has resigned

her position on the board; therefore a nominee is needed to fill her seat.

There were no nominations.



*** *** ***



COOPERATIVE EXTENSION:



Clerk of Council Washington advised that Reverend Joseph Roberson is

eligible to succeed himself for another term of office; but does not wish to

serve again; therefore a nominee is needed for his seat. There were no

nominations.



*** *** ***









COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL:



Clerk of Council Washington advised that Councilor Davis is working on

getting a replacement to fill the seat of Mr. Bryan Stone, whose seat was

declared vacant by this Council.



*** *** ***



HOSPITAL AUTHORITY:



Clerk of Council Washington advised that Mr. Thomas Gurr has resigned his

position on the Hospital Authority and that Council needs to nominate three

individuals from which the Authority will select someone to fill this seat. She

also advised that Nancy Rinn?s term of office has expired and she cannot

succeed herself and that we need three nominees for this seat as well.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------



NOTE: Councilor Barnes left the meeting at 8:38 p.m.



-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------





PERSONNEL REVIEW BOARD:



Clerk of Council Washington advised that Ms. Gladys Tillmon has been

nominated to replace Mr. Emit Day on the Personnel Review Board and advises

that she may be confirmed. Councilor Henderson moved confirmation. Seconded by

Councilor Allen and carried unanimously by those eight members of Council

present at the time, with Councilors Barnes and Davis being absent for this

vote.



*** *** ***



RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD:



Clerk of Council Washington advised that Mr. Gary Gibson, who is the

School District?s nominee, has been recommended for another term of office and

said that he could be confirmed on the Recreation Advisory Board. Councilor

Henderson moved confirmation. Second by Councilor Baker and carried

unanimously by those eight members of Council present at the time, with

Councilors Barnes and Davis being absent for this vote.



*** *** ***



TAXICAB COMMISSION:



Clerk of Council Washington advised that Mr. James Nash?s seat has been

declared vacant therefore a nominee is needed for his position. She advised

that Mr. Robert Kidd has resigned his position on the board and we are checking

with the Chamber of Commerce for a recommendation for this position.



*** *** ***



UPTOWN FA?ADE BOARD:



Clerk of Council Washington advised that Mr. Fred Greene has been

nominated to succeed Mr. David Wolf on the Uptown Fa?ade Board and said that he

may now be confirmed. She also said that Mr. Garrett Pound has been nominated

for another term of office and said that they could be confirmed. Councilor

Henderson moved confirmation. Second by Councilor Allen and carried

unanimously by those eight members of Council present at the time, with

Councilors Barnes and Davis being absent for this vote.

-----------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------





With there being no additional business for the Council to discuss, Mayor

Wetherington then entertained a motion for adjournment. Councilor McDaniel so

moved. Seconded by Councilor Woodson carried unanimously by those eight members

of Council present at the time, with Councilor Barnes and Councilor Davis being

absent for this vote, with the time being 8:40 p.m.







Tiny B. Washington, CMC

Clerk of Council

The Council of Columbus, Georgia

Attachments

---

No attachments for this document.